Gillibrand: Hillary Should Run In 2016

Someone agrees with me:

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Hillary Clinton's protegee and replacement in the Senate, says she'll ask the Secretary of State to run for President in 2016. [...] "I'm going to be one of the first to ask Hillary to run in 2016," Gillibrand told BuzzFeed, saying she "certainly hope[s]" Clinton will run for president.

"I think she would be incredibly well-poised to be our next Democratic president," Gillibrand said. "I think she's extremely well prepared. I think her experience as Secretary of State has not only elevated her stature and experience, but she's proven she's someone who can get things done and I think she'd be an outstanding candidate."

Also this: "Gillibrand's words also a rebuke to her own governor, Andrew Cuomo, who also appears to be positioning himself for a future White House run." STOP Cuomo!!!

Speaking for me only

< Standoff in Toulouse: Mohamed Merah is Dead | Tragic Irony >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The Clintons (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 11:41:10 AM EST
    have been big fans of Gillibrand.  

    I think Hillary supported her for the Senate when everyone was enamored with the idea of Caroline Kennedy taking that seat....

    Nope (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 12:48:43 PM EST
    I think Hillary supported her for the Senate when everyone was enamored with the idea of Caroline Kennedy taking that seat.

    Clinton didn't say a word about her replacement during the brief, 6-week period when Kennedy said she was interested in the Senate seat.

    ... and "everyone" wasn't enamored with the idea of Kennedy.


    I do think the Clintons supported (none / 0) (#56)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 02:31:19 PM EST
    the selection of Gillibrand.

    The concern was that Gillibrand was too conservative, being from uptstate.

    And, good grief, yes, not literally everyone supported Caroline.....Many did...but that wasn't the main point I was making.....


    Okay, here is (none / 0) (#57)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 02:43:36 PM EST
    a blurb from Time Magazine about Gillibrand in January 2009:

     Has direct ties to Hillary Clinton, having helped raise money for Clinton's 2000 Senate bid and later earning Clinton's endorsement when Gillibrand ran for office in 2006. New York's other Senator, Charles Schumer, reportedly was a staunch advocate for Gillibrand to succeed Clinton in the U.S. Senate.

    So, you wanna fight about this too?

    The broader point is that Gillibrand and Hillary have had "direct" ties for a awhile now.


    Ahhhhh .... the "broader" point, ... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 05:38:31 PM EST
    ... meaning, an entirely different point.

    BTW - Your blurb doesn't support your claim:

    I think Hillary supported her for the Senate when everyone was enamored with the idea of Caroline Kennedy taking that seat.

    ... and if by "everyone" you meant 24% who supported her candidacy (while 48% said she was unqualified), then I guess you could be right.



    There is no question that (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 12:05:22 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton is pretty much the complete package - she's whip-smart, soaks up information like a sponge, is probably the first one on the job in the morning and the last one to go home, has great people skills, knows how things work, how to get things done, doesn't shy away from contentious issues, is battle-tested, probably learned a lot of important lessons in 2008 - but, where is she on the issues?  Will she just pick up the Obama mantle - which I, at least, don't care for - or will she be a different kind of Democrat?  And will she be comfortable explaining on the campaign trail what she would do differently than her Democratic predecessor? Will her good-soldier loyalties allow her to push back against that - will the party pooh-bahs allow her to do it?  Or will they cull out of the herd someone more amenable to running in the Obama mode?

    So, on the entire political landscape, is she really it?  I really don't want her to be the Brett Favre of presidential politics.

    Cuomo's been mentioned and there have been rumors about Martin O'Malley - my state's governor - but he is in the process of wanting to raise about every tax there is to close a big budget gap, and that could come back to bite him.  He might make a good VP, though.  A Catholic, he was the one who pushed the same-sex marriage bill to victory here, but...Maryland is getting a new bishop to replace now-Cardinal O'Brien, and he is apparently a hard-liner who has vowed to carry on the fight for religious liberty on all fronts on which he deems it's being threatened, and how O'Malley responds will be interesting.  O'Malley has a miserable track record on commutation of prison sentences and clemency - as in, he just has turned a blind eye to recommendations of the clemency board - and hasn't done enough to get rid of the death penalty.

    I guess we'll see if the rumors are true, and how the rest of his term as governor plays out.

    I don't think my preferred candidate actually exists within the Democratic Party, at least as the Democratic Party seems to be positione. And I'm not sure how inclined any Democratic candidate will be to roll back what will, by 2016, be 16 years' worth of privacy and other rights erosion and massive accretion of executive power, 8 years of which, it looks like, will have been under Democratic auspices.  And 16 years of allowing Wall Street and the banks to write their own tickets, much to the detriment of the country and the economy.  And 16 years of deficit hysteria.

    That's the problem we're looking at, you know - 8 years of a Democratic administration that has co-opted and embraced a lot of Republican policy.

    Really, the whole thing is just very depressing.

    her vision and policies, (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 12:25:19 PM EST
    we won't know till she gets into office


    Her hair,

    What's with the stringy rag doll look?

    Her face is so attractive when she wears her hair up, in some kind of bob. The mop look makes her really look old and tired.

    C'mon Hil, knock'm out.


    LOL (none / 0) (#21)
    by me only on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 12:28:45 PM EST
    Hillary has a great story about campaigning in the South in 1992 about her hair.

    Ha (none / 0) (#102)
    by kmblue on Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 09:14:16 AM EST
    Talk about Romney's hair, you sexist.  It looks like plastic.

    "good soldier loyalties" (none / 0) (#19)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 12:21:18 PM EST
    that take precendence over wisdom, decency and creativity: I think we had just about enough of that in thirties and forties..

    And. the long-suffering, loyal-to-a-fault - ie, her very Virtuousness is her weakness - meme about Hillary is, sorry to say, getting more threadbare and insupportable all the time.


    Then maybe you should ... (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 12:33:53 PM EST
    And. the long-suffering, loyal-to-a-fault - ie, her very Virtuousness is her weakness - meme about Hillary is, sorry to say, getting more threadbare and insupportable all the time.

    ... stop pushing it ...


    How is it being their attack dog.. (2.50 / 4) (#27)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 12:56:52 PM EST
    they feed you well? give you alot of space to run around and such?

    "Attack dog" - heh (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    Not as much space as the CDSers use to grow all that straw that they use to dream up imaginary "memes".

    yes..CDS..I think I've heard that before.. (none / 0) (#30)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 01:10:56 PM EST
    the subtext of course being that only the mentally unbalanced would deem to publicly criticize that semi-divine couple whose ways are not our ways..

    Hope you have a horse (none / 0) (#33)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 01:17:15 PM EST
    Big help with all the leftover straw.

    I think loyalty can be an admirable (none / 0) (#50)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 02:22:50 PM EST
    quality, but when loyalty to party trumps loyalty to the people one purports to want to represent, or to an agenda that is being marginalized by one that is unrecognizable as representative of one's beliefs, it ain't so great.

    Under the right circumstances, loyalty and taking-one-for-the-team serves the greater good; but while "the greater good" in this case was deemed to be the defeat of McCain/Palin, I'm not so sure the "good" of electing Barack Obama was significantly "greater" to ahve made it worthwhile in the long run.

    So, what should she have done?  Maybe not going as quietly into the night as she did, not shortcutting the nomination process, not becoming as vocal a cheerleader for someone whose views she clearly did not share - and asking us to make that pivot with her.  Maybe resisting the wholesale changes to long-standing Democratic ideals that were ushered in when a not-so-Democratic Democrat was being fitted for the crown of heir apparent to the party.

    Irks me that one's loyalty to party could be maintained through such radical changes to that party - because it's really not the same party it used to be.  Why would loyalty to something that doesn't reflect one's views be a good thing?

    She's smart enough to know what she could have done, but, like many good politicians, she made the choice that was best for her political fortunes - she got a Cabinet position out of it - but the ripple effect of that hasn't translated to being best for the collective fortune and well-being of a lot of Americans.  


    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 03:43:32 PM EST
    Just as any man does, she wanted as much power as she could get.  Party loyalty would get her that.  Upholding principles would not....

    It's a sad fact.  


    Hillary had little choice (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 09:58:03 PM EST
    I believe she backed out of bringing the contest to the floor of the Dem Convention because she knew it would not work, her nationwide reputation as a spoiler would have been cemented in stone, etc. Not work - why you say?  Because the Dems showed at the Rules & By-Laws committee meeting that they were willing to violate their own rules to ensure Obama's nomination.  Hillary would not have recovered from the media blasting she would have received.  She is now a media darling; they believe she can do no wrong. Even Tweety has become an unabashed fan. Yes, she is now well positioned, I believe, to grab the nomination in 2016, and she would have the press behind her. But had she opposed Obama at the Convention, the media would never have allowed her to recover. I don't think she did what she did to get the SoS nomination -- as I understand it, that was a complete surprise.  

    I think you are dreaming if you think (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 10:21:54 PM EST
    Hillary's media darling status would last 15 seconds past her even breathing any interest in a 2016 run.

    I don't think she did what she did specifically to get that Cabinet position, but it ended up coming her way because she played the game their way - and because it served Obama to have her off the domestic affairs stage where her powerful and increasingly populist voice would not have meshed well with his conservative one.

    Nothing has changed.  Nothing.


    I agree with you 100% (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by indy in sc on Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 09:14:12 AM EST
    that Hillary's media darling status would evaporate in record speed if she indicated a candidacy for 2016.  The media, some republicans and some democrats have been effusive in their praise for her as SOS solely because it is "safe" for them to do that because she is in a well defined box as far as they're concerned (notwithstanding that she deserves the praise).  

    The second she poses an actual threat to them, they will dust off the bogey man version of Hillary with a quickness.

    I disagree with you here:

    where her powerful and increasingly populist voice would not have meshed well with his conservative one

    Hillary began to campaign as a populist towards the end, but IMO would have governed as a pragmatist.  There is no evidence to the contrary given what many of her policy positions were.


    You may be right that her governance (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 09:47:56 AM EST
    would have trended more toward pragmatism, but I don't think, at that point, Obama felt he could risk her being out there as a private citizen, with millions of avid supporters whom he wouldn't stand a chance of winning over if he didn't reach out and fold her into his administration.

    I bet if you asked people then where her strengths could best be utilized within the administration, not that many would have chosen the State Department and matters of foreign policy.  I suspect that most people saw her strengths as being on the domestic front - on health care and women's rights and education, nutrition, and so on - I know I did.  Do you doubt she would have been miles and miles better than Kathleen Sebelius at HHS?  

    In my opinion, he offered her State because he didn't want her around to remind people what her domestic agenda had been, because it wasn't going to be his agenda.  And she's been good at carrying out Obama's foreign policy agenda because, sadly, I think they have much more of a meeting of the minds on that front.

    I don't doubt that Hillary has a role to play, but I truly don't see her taking on what would probably be an even more brutal and bruising campaign that 2008, because after all her playing nice with the powers that be, going out of her way to help the party, I think the power structure will thank her kindly for her help, and throw their support to a centrist/moderate/conservative man who can carry on in the Obama tradition, and won't threaten their own hold on party power.


    Beg to differ in some respects (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 07:47:05 PM EST
    I think she would be well received by the party, the public and the media.  She has shown she can garner large numbers of votes; her national popularity is in the 70% range; and my gut tells me a lot of people now recognize we need competence and strength of the type Hillary exhibits in our leadership.  Do I agree with all of her positions -- to the extent I know them?  No.  Do I think she has sensibilities that would urge her pragmatic bent in the direction of giving relief to the average person, yes.  Just prior to the election of 2008, she came out in favor of a program, similar to one under FDR, where homeowners were given relief.  I think on economic policy, she leans far more toward helping the average American, reducing poverty and gains that are shared by all classes.  
    I guess all remains to be seen if she's even interested in running.  After all, anything can happen between now and 2016.

    She also would have (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 01:12:30 AM EST
    accomplished absolutely nothing by doing that except a whole lot of damage, and perhaps made some people here feel tingles going up their legs.

    Hillary ain't a martyr.  She's a very pragmatic pol.  I have zero problem with that.


    I absolutely (none / 0) (#38)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 01:40:02 PM EST
    know that my preferred candidate does not exist today in the Democratic Party. But then, as I have said many, many times before, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party.  The Democratic Party left me."

    I don't believe (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by indy in sc on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 12:35:32 PM EST
    Hillary will run.  I hope she does--if she does, Democrats will take 2016 and down ballot races can only be helped b/c turnout will be ridiculously high.

    I could see Biden as SOS in a Hillary administration (but someone needs to watch his mouth or several international incidents will be started for no reason).

    Perhaps with 3 years to rest during a second Obama term or first Romney term--I shudder to think--she will find the renewed fire to run for POTUS.  We'll see...

    Biden's mouth, IMO (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 01:14:25 AM EST
    utterly disqualifies him for SoS under any circumstances and any administration.

    Where is the evidence that (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Towanda on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 02:25:07 PM EST
    the guys in the Democratic Party leadership have changed?  They were the problem for Clinton last time, and they would have to change their behaviors for the Democrats to win with her next time.

    And I never have seen old men learn that fast.  

    LOL, yep (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 03:41:12 PM EST
    The good old boys aren't going to elect a woman...they want the job too much themselves.  Why would they give it to a girl?

    Maybe because (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 04:20:54 PM EST
    about 53% (and, in some key states, an even larger percentage) of the voters are women.  

    While I share your concern and while I was a strong Hillary supporter--with work & $$--in the 2008 primary, it is fair to say that a lot of the subterranean maneuvering within the structure in 2008 & the push to end the primary (see, as an example, today's Repub push) is a fairly typical power-play whenever there is a long primary. Even tho I had no difficulty focusing political allegiance on our then-candidate & now-President Obama following the conclusion of that primary, one aspect of the who-supported-whom among the Dem leadership was fascinating...i.e., recall that Nancy Pelosi pushed hard to close down the primary about the time of the Pennsylvania primary (which Hillary won.) At the time, I thought that gambit was something-other-than-fascinating (and, I'll probably regret having mentioned it here.)

    Point of above paragraph: Of course, there was substantial misogyny demonstrated throughout the 2008 season...and, as we have seen since throughout the land, there is a strong odor of racism that many of us see as apparent during Obama's first term.  Also: The push by Democratic leadership cut a couple of different ways--in addition to the Pelosi move, we also witnessed the Kennedy push...etc. etc.  When all is said & done about which person played what role in the Democratic leadership at the time, my latest thinking is that the real drive had to do with  the strength of the Executive vis-a-vis the strength of the Congress--the old assimilation of power (and was that power to emanate from a strong legislative branch or from the executive branch) or the locus of power (was it to reside with the Kennedys, Carters, or Clintons.)

    Whatever was the real animator will make very good reading from a historical perspective.

    Oh...After what I hope will be a successful two-term President Obama, I would welcome a 2016 Hillary Clinton run & the opportunity to work in that undoubtedly successful campaign.


    I hope we find out (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 01:19:55 AM EST
    just how it all developed while I'm still cogent enough to follow the story.  I'd particularly like to know what the deal was with Howard Dean, why he behaved the way he did, and then why he got instantly ditched by the Obama people.

    Everybody in the commentariat is so fascinated with the Halperin/Heilemann "Game Change" about the McCain campaign, but the really fascinating behind-the-scenes drama, IMO, is what happened on the Dem. side, and we have close to zero actual information about that.

    And FWIW, I'd bet money that Pelosi has been smacking herself upside the head for having maneuvered and pushed for Obama over Hillary.


    Pelosi is rich (none / 0) (#107)
    by NYShooter on Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 06:46:02 PM EST
    and a Wall Street baby.

    She was merely buttering her bread.


    There is no reasoning in this (none / 0) (#73)
    by Towanda on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 05:56:53 PM EST
    comment to back a "because."  The voting data are unchanged.  The rest is personal anecdote or irrelevant.

    Still waiting.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#76)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 06:07:19 PM EST
    At this point, towanda (none / 0) (#77)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 06:17:19 PM EST
    All is anecdote & personal deduction from an array of differing "facts.". Would that it were plain math...but, at this date, the mathematical and/or clearly convincing data as to what precisely happened does not appear to be available to anyone.  At least, no one seems to have presented "data.". But then, most "history" relies on loads of anecdote, conventional thinking, and whatnot when "politics" is involved...else why would we see so many disputed versions of power-positioning.  Cut me a break :) hmmm.

    Of course not; there is plenty (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Towanda on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 10:02:29 PM EST
    of data and other evidence, such as events, to marshal to support an argument, either way. But the data to argue for change ought to have changed.

    And it's most journalism that relies on loads of anecdote, conventional thinking, etc.  There is some history that still does so, but that's the pap for the populace, not good history.


    take your point, but (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 03:50:45 PM EST
    actually i disagree

    maybe not in 2016, but sooner than we may expect, i think we will have the first woman president

    Hillary Clinton's 2008 run made the prospect of a woman president viable at last, just as Barack Obama's election has made the prospect of future black presidents viable

    it will not surprise me, however, if the first woman president is a Republican - i suspect that men in the GOP are capable, as men in the Democratic Party may not be, of appearing to take a time out from the War on Women to advance their overall political agenda


    I think they take a perverse pleasure in (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 03:57:54 PM EST
    using women to wage the war on women; it's like a stamp of approval.

    yes, it's a long GOP tradition (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 04:05:03 PM EST
    but we've seen that on the left as well - to take just one example, & not even a particularly recent one, remember how Camille Paglia became practically a pin-up for certain "progressive"/left-libertarian antifeminist men?

    The way (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 04:28:04 PM EST
    the GOP is going if they were to nominate a woman for President they are going to have to completely have a demographic colonoscopy. You saw the way they treated Bachmann didn't you? It was don't let the door hit you on the way out.

    I don't know if I will see a woman President in my lifetime.


    OTOH, (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Zorba on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 04:44:55 PM EST
    I never thought that I'd see a black President in my lifetime.  So you never know.

    True (none / 0) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 06:30:48 PM EST
    I never thought I would see a black president either. Maybe there is going to be something good that comes out of the "war on women"?

    Well, yes, but Bachmann is an obvious (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 01:22:06 AM EST
    loon, even to the GOP side.  I don't think you can really draw any larger conclusions from that.

    Fine, but the question is why? (none / 0) (#74)
    by Towanda on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 05:59:49 PM EST
    Again, nice to see optimism, but that doesn't address the question.  You see the result occurring at some point, but what is the reasoning that argues for "the men problem" to have been fixed?

    (I do agree that the first probably will be a Republican -- or at least I did, until this latest war on us -- and I can give reasoning, but that gets away from the focus of this post even more.)


    i didn't say (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 10:43:13 PM EST
    that "the men problem" has been or will be fixed, but there are lots of women who vote

    & now women have seen, thanks to Hillary Clinton, that a woman presidential candidate can be taken seriously by the male establishment

    this is not to say Hillary wasn't reviled in certain quarters of that establishment, but it was often precisely because she was a very serious candidate

    remember, Hillary was polling extremely well among black voters in South Carolina until they saw Barack Obama win the Iowa caucuses - that's when they started to believe, in a big way, that a black man could become the Democratic presidential nominee - & then Obama's big win in South Carolina convinced black voters elsewhere, who had been very guarded if not outright skeptical about his chances

    so we'll see how soon U.S. voters are ready for strides against sexism to equal those that the electorate appears to have made against racism

    until then, i guess i have my intuitions & you have yours


    A good point (none / 0) (#106)
    by Towanda on Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 11:45:49 AM EST
    that earlier support from women voters could make a difference, compared to possible early cynicism about the potential of her candidacy in 2008.  To that I would add -- entirely anecdotally on my part! -- that I witnessed younger women voters, initially doubtful that sexism and misogyny exist, get a wake-up call in 2008 that could bring them aboard sooner.  That is, if they vote in good numbers again; I also saw many become disgusted with politics, because of the sexism and misogyny (and others discouraged since, because of their disappointment after their "hope" for "change" that hasn't happened).

    And a good point that, without an African American opponent to woo that bloc of voters, they could add numbers for Clinton -- although they won't again vote in the numbers that they did in 2008.


    Well (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 04:26:01 PM EST
    their objections can be overcome by the voters. And maybe she learned something from her last run should she run again.

    So, you also don't see men changing (none / 0) (#75)
    by Towanda on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 06:04:30 PM EST
    and it's the woman candidate who has to change.

    How can she change her cankles?  I mean, she covered 'em up with the pantsuits, but the the boyz didn't like that, either.  C'mon; you know.  It's not really about her anatomy; it's about their boy parts.  It's not really about her brain, because she's smarter than almost any of them; it's about their boy parts speaking instead of their brains.  Etc.

    So, again, let's at least agree that -- to use the parallel from race studies, which reminds us that "the race problem" really is "a white problem" -- she's fine, she's brainy, she was ready before, she will have even more experience than before . . . but none of that mattered.  It was "the men problem," and have they fixed it?  


    No (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 06:26:26 PM EST
    actually I don't think she should change herself only that she might want to run her campaign differently. After rereading what I wrote, I realize that it did not come off the way. I mean learn something about how to circumvent the guys.

    And the next time someone starts talking about "cankles" and I'm in their presence, I might just risk breaking a hand across their face.  

    I happen to think if she has enough people on the ground which she had ton last time and quite a following that she can overcome all that crap.

    That being said I don't expect the OFB club to very welcoming but since Obama hasn't been anything near as glorious as they claimed he would be, I'm going to tell them just to STFU if they say one stinking word.


    With that, I can agree (none / 0) (#83)
    by Towanda on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 09:57:30 PM EST
    as her campaign staff disserved her -- although she let them do so; she will not allow that again.

    We also agree, though, that from the top of the party on down, we have seen no signs of the guys getting it.  So the party still has a "men problem," and I would bet that at best, they may be ostensibly better behaved in 2016 -- but just will become more subtle in undercutting her.

    The one "hope" for "change" is that Teddy Kennedy, bless his big heart except about Clintons, is gone.  I don't think that there's another of his power with the public as well as behind the scenes who could do again what he did in 2008 -- except for Obama.  So as long as she consults her husband and her minister on the important decisions, he'll be better this time?


    it's not just that (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by CST on Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 10:11:27 AM EST
    there's also the "Obama" factor.  Say what you will but he was a very popular opponent for her to run against.  I don't see anyone coming up the pipeline like that.  It's not the people in charge who have changed, it's the competition.

    I think a lot of the people who supported Obama in the primary in '08 would support Hillary in '16.  Maybe not the loud dudes with the loud microphones, but a significant portion of the voters.  Yes, some of that is anecdotal (I'm talking about me, and btd, and the members of my family who didn't support Hillary in '08), but I think it's a fair assesment.  I also think there are a lot of people who didn't support her early in the primaries, but did more and more as it went on.  How many here were Edwards voter?  Sure she will have competition again, but I think she's won over the most important sceptics - the voters.


    Now, this point re context (none / 0) (#105)
    by Towanda on Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 11:39:59 AM EST
    begins to persuade me -- until I remember that the powers-that-be in the party were able to create the Obama momentum from nowhere, so they could do so again.  

    Of course, they may not be able to find such a political creature from such a powerful Dem dominion (i.e., Chicago) to create that level of craziness again.  But I bet that the Dems could find some guy able to derail Clinton sufficiently, with the aid of another of their whisper campaigns.

    Thanks for an intriguing reply, though, and worth watching.


    Didn't come from nowhere (none / 0) (#109)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 07:52:05 PM EST
    it came from a concerted effort on the part of Ted Kennedy and others.  

    Ah, but (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 10:31:24 AM EST
    What about Joe Biden?

    What about (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 11:11:34 AM EST
    Joe Biden?


    That's what.


    If Joe Biden (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 11:15:24 AM EST
    Throws his hat in tbe ring, HRC definitely won't get in.

    Not that I think she will anyways.


    Biden will be 74 (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 11:22:49 AM EST
    and I think the reverse is true - if Hillary gets in, Biden does not.

    It's Hillary's choice, not Biden's.


    Of course (none / 0) (#70)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 05:10:07 PM EST
    there is always the glorious possibility that neither of these folks (Biden or Hillary) will be in the race of 2016 - a race that so many are looking forward to, I suspect, because the race of 2012 is so dreary. Both are rather moth-eaten and will be even more so by 2016.

    Bill Clinton came out of nowhere.
    Jimmy "I"ll never lie to you" Carter came out of nowhere.
    Obama came out of nowhere.
    (He is still nowhere, but I digress.)

    The folks that decide these matters for us may once again decide to bring in another charismatic personality to dazzle us and pick our pockets.

    Can't wait.


    And...who are these people that (none / 0) (#72)
    by christinep on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 05:49:06 PM EST
    "decide these matters for us?". Recognizing that we don't usually align on political theory & reality, nonetheless, I'm intrigued by the identity of these all-powerful "folks.". The infamous "they.?". A friend of mine says that she has always wondered about what-she-calls The House of They.

    Haven't (none / 0) (#78)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 06:22:06 PM EST
    you noticed that we are given a choice of candidates from which to choose? Haven't you noticed that are always big big bucks behind them - usually coming from the same sources?

    The "they" to whom I refer are the very rich. And giant corporations. Often multi-national corporations. They do, I am sorry to say, have a preponderance of power in deciding the candidates from which we have to choose.

    I, for one, feel that I am being given the choice between two right-wingers. Romney or Obama. There is no opposition to Obama from the democratic party. The challengers to Romney are also right-wing ideologues. We are left to choose between them.

    The media, financed entirely by these same corporations, routinely ignore candidates that they consider to be "minor". In "debates"', the "moderators" give inordinate amounts of time to those they consider to be "front-runners". It is a travesty. A violation of democracy. A privately financed circus - presenting us with a choice between candidates that their sponsors tell us are "viable"'.

    Christine, you may feel that you are living in a democracy.
    But I, I regret to say, don't.


    If (none / 0) (#26)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 12:55:35 PM EST
    Biden throws his mangy fedora in the ring, I'm throwing in the towel.

    from what I remember (none / 0) (#6)
    by CST on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 11:28:07 AM EST
    Joe Biden made a comment when he was selected as VP that it should have been Hillary - or something like that.

    I think he would absolutely step aside for her.


    Not so sure. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 11:44:53 AM EST
    Biden and Clinton are both pols.  And, Biden will have been (in all likelihood) vice president for eight years and the desire to be president will be great--and he does not lack in self-esteem.  And, Biden seems to have gained confidence with some of his advice on Afghanistan strategy.  The nice words in 2008 may have been made at a time when Biden and Clinton were not in real competition for the vice presidential nod.  And, of course, they were both in the 2008 Democratic primaries. It is possible that  Gillibrand may have not only Cuomo, but Biden, in mind.

    I think he said it after (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by CST on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 11:50:10 AM EST
    he was picked.

    You have a point.  But I don't see Hillary standing down for Biden either.  Not if she still has any ambition.  I don't care how much of a team player you are, if you want to be president, you don't stand aside for a man with zero public appeal.

    He's not Al Gore, a consensus pick.  It's clear that Obama was trying to go the Cheney route, have an old guy that people wouldn't try and elevate.  Now Biden may go for it anyway, but we're a few years removed now from anyone assuming the VP is the inevitable candidate.  I think if Biden runs he would (and should) have competition - and not just from Hillary.

    Maybe if everyone else stood aside for Biden Hillary would to.  But I don't see that happening at all, I see it as being fairly open, even if Obama wins again.  You think she will stand aside if Cuomo doesn't?  I sure don't.  You think Cuomo will step aside for Biden?  Me neither.  All this being under the assumption that she still wants it.


    Of course we are engaging in (none / 0) (#12)
    by KeysDan on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 12:00:09 PM EST
    a lot of speculation, but my point was intended to address the thinking that 'Biden will absolutely step aside for Clinton'.  

    true (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by CST on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 01:02:13 PM EST
    I concede that point.

    Cuomo (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 12:15:18 PM EST
    Is not the sitting VP with the "weight of the WH" behind him or on his resume.

    HRC will also probably not want to get into another Dem on Dem fray with someone from the same administration she served in.

    And if Obama wins a second term, I definitely see her not getting on, since in this day and age, a third term by the same party would be very hatd to achieve.


    Cuomo. I would find it hard to vote for him (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Coral on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 01:45:44 PM EST
    I don't particularly care for the record he is creating in NY. Not the liberal his dad was.

    four years between (none / 0) (#37)
    by sj on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 01:37:18 PM EST
    service and a campaign run is enough to put distance between a her and the administration so I don't really think that has to be an issue.  But I tend to fall into agreement with your last paragraph.  

    Rather see Gillibrand run (none / 0) (#4)
    by BobTinKY on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 11:19:03 AM EST
    than Hillary.

    Gillebrand (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Coral on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 01:46:34 PM EST
    is one of my favorites. If Hillary doesn't run, I hope Gillebrand does.

    No more Senators! (none / 0) (#43)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 02:02:00 PM EST
    Perhaps you should consider (none / 0) (#51)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 02:23:33 PM EST
    the individual, seems sort short sighted to eliminate one because they happen to be a Senator. Gillibrand, so far, seems much different than then Sen Obama . . .

    Senators (none / 0) (#55)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 02:30:36 PM EST
    I like Gillibrand.  But there's a reason that Obama is the first elected Senator in over 40 years (and 2008, by a fluke, was going to have and elected Senator, no matter what). Senators (and House members) give long-winded speeches.  They pontificate, obfuscate, and they (supposedly) collaborate.  They do not lead.  They can sit back and be "one of the group".  They generally are not held accountable for their actions and votes,a s 98% of them are re-elected, election after election. They do not have make tough calls, except for when it comes to their own re-election chances.  They do not have to formulate a budget.  In short, they are not executives.

    And yes, experience DOES matter.


    Gillebrand (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 06:28:28 PM EST
    has actually shown some leadership while in the senate. Obama basically did nothing during his tenure in the senate except sponsor one bill with Coburn.

    There's a lot to what you say (none / 0) (#58)
    by sj on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 02:57:32 PM EST
    Having said that... not all senators are equal.  People aren't all "one-size-fits-all".  Even senators.

    if Elizabeth Warren wins in MA (none / 0) (#45)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 02:05:11 PM EST
    i wonder if she might consider running in 2016

    Now you're talking... (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 02:11:46 PM EST
    even if she doesn't win in MA.

    She has no experience in bending us all over for Wall St...thats a huge positive, not a negative.


    She also has (none / 0) (#90)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 01:06:42 AM EST
    an awesomely powerful intellect, something one can't say, much as I like her, of Kirsten Gililbrand.

    Another person (none / 0) (#46)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 02:07:06 PM EST
    With 5 minutes of experience????

    i've heard that experience is overrated (none / 0) (#47)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 02:09:18 PM EST
    she could start raising cash & assembling a campaign staff during her first year in the Senate

    & i like Elizabeth Warren


    as a senator (none / 0) (#49)
    by CST on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 02:21:54 PM EST
    Which is entirely (none / 0) (#53)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 02:25:24 PM EST
    different than an executive

    agree (none / 0) (#54)
    by CST on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 02:29:05 PM EST
    so what does it matter if she hasn't done that very long, if it's not that relevant to the job at hand?

    Is being a senator any more/less relevant than another job?  And if not, then she will have way more than 5 years of experience as an employed individual.

    I kind of hope she wins this out and sticks around for a few so we have a decent senator again.  If she's decent.  That being said, if she ran I'd probably vote for her.


    Sure (none / 0) (#98)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 06:46:18 AM EST
    'Cuz why not have someone in the most important job in the world getting on the job training?  It's worked so well for us so far.....

    The way I see it is she is 60 yo (none / 0) (#99)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 07:49:33 AM EST
    she has 60 years of exeprience.  And she has both challenged herself & stretched her capabilities during those years all the while displaying great intellect and political courage defending consumers against the greatest tidal wave of Wall Street finance & power in history.

    But if you want someone who has been hip deep in the MIC, Wall Street,  inside the beltway mutual admiration society, who has shown their mettle & seriousness by supporting the indiscriminate bombing of people not like us someplace else, well that's a different type of experience.  The type I for one can do without.


    Rather see an actual donkey run... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 11:29:28 AM EST
    than any of the early these early Brand D front-runners for 2016.

    Biden takes the cake as the worst of the worst though.


    It's kinda too bad (none / 0) (#8)
    by sj on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 11:34:20 AM EST
    that she's not running in 2012.

    Cuomo is all shuck and jive talk. (none / 0) (#13)
    by observed on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 12:03:06 PM EST
    you can ignore him.

    really? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 12:07:42 PM EST
    i thought he was clean and articulate ; )

    The local press... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 01:11:29 PM EST
    seems to love Cuomo..."getting things done" in the cesspool we call Albany.

    Whether those things getting done are good or bad, it is a mixed bag.  Gay marriage, good.  Paving the way for real casinos in NY State, good.  Drug policy bad...very bad.  Pension reform he's playing favorites.  Definitely not having his State AG police Wall St. effectively.


    well you know what happens (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 01:14:55 PM EST
    when you police Wall St..they start hacking into those escort service computers looking for names..

    LOL... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 01:22:42 PM EST
    Is that what John Edwards has been up to lately?  He's in the process of getting Spitzered as part of the Soccer Mom Madam case.

    Lordy (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by sj on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 01:48:49 PM EST
    Some one wants him to shut up for now and forever and ever.  It sure looks like some one wants to make absolutely sure that he can never, ever repair his reputation.

    Of course the press loves Andrew. (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by caseyOR on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 04:27:53 PM EST
    The press is always giddy over a Democrat who acts like a Republican.

    Not his state AG ... who was elected independently (none / 0) (#35)
    by Erehwon on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 01:24:21 PM EST
    Also ...

    Property tax cap, bad.
    Wanting to continue lower taxes for the very rich, bad.


    Stand corrected... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 01:30:20 PM EST
    Thanks.  But he could pressure the AG if he wanted to..he "gets things done!" ;)

    And I forgot his pet DNA data bank project...scary bad.


    Where is she on the issues? (none / 0) (#16)
    by BobTinKY on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 12:11:02 PM EST
    about where Obama is.  Like Obama, standing next to Joe Leiberman at about a hundred miles from Bernie Sanders.  Maybe a bit more hawkish than Obama but the Prez appears to view it as a contest he can win.

    Depressing is putting it charitably.

    Is Gillenbrand Hillary's John (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 12:12:52 PM EST
    the Baptist?

    If Hillary does run (none / 0) (#24)
    by fishcamp on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 12:48:27 PM EST
    could Bill be her VP?

    Constitutionally murky (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 02:01:16 PM EST
    But probably not since the VP has to be constitutionally eligible to be president.

    that is the last thing she would want (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 02:02:28 PM EST
    Can't be from the same state (none / 0) (#100)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 07:51:14 AM EST
    they'd have to split up and declare separate residences.

    Hmmm, maybe she will run and pick Bill after all.


    That's because (none / 0) (#64)
    by fishcamp on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 04:07:16 PM EST
    there are so many good men out there...

    I consider it bad luck (none / 0) (#82)
    by brodie on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 06:59:02 PM EST
    to get too far afield speculating too many elections ahead when the outcome of the one right around the corner is so much in doubt.

    That said, I'm pessimistic that HRC will run again despite the encoyragement from Gillibrand and others, but if she did I'd like to believe she will have rethought some of her tough FP attitudes, especially about sending American troops into hostile Muslim countries to fight terrorism and re reflexively backing Israel, assuming Israel will still exist in 2016.

    As for Biden he will be too old and shopworn by then, not a major obstacle either for Hillary or even Gillibrand herself whom I regard highly.  Jill Biden perhaps would be a tough opponent.  Not Joe.

    don't count me in that group. (none / 0) (#88)
    by cpinva on Thu Mar 22, 2012 at 11:50:18 PM EST
    Someone agrees with me:

    much as i would love to see secty. of state clinton be the democrat party's standard bearer in 2016, i am also a brutal realist. 2008 was her best chance, when all the planets were aligned in her favor. such will not be the case in 2016. she'll be 8 years older, as will pres. clinton, the rightwingnut shriekfest will have it's blades even more honed than before and, most likely, she'll be a grandma, wanting to spend time with the grand babies, and take a well deserved respite from public life.

    frankly, i would also be concerned about her health, both from the natural effects of age, and the very high probability that some rightwingnut loony tune will attempt to assassinate her, urged on by such as limbaugh, beck, savage, et al.

    the democrats need to be grooming a younger woman for that breakthrough role, starting several years ago. perhaps sen. gillibrand herself, having had the advantage of secty. clinton as a mentor (mentoress?).

    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#94)
    by sj on Fri Mar 23, 2012 at 01:21:05 AM EST
    And I'm up way too late.  G'night all.